Catch the Vision
“Called to live?”
Summary
We set out our strategic
thinking under five headings, ecumenism, changing church, spirituality and core
values, ways of working, and finance and resources. We conclude:
-
That our commitment
to ecumenism should not restrain us from focusing on mission. We are called
to live, not die.
-
That the structures
have been put in place for local experiments in being church differently
-
That we are summoned
to renewal, to model the love of God and the unity we have given by moving
beyond stereotypical divisions of ‘liberal’ and ‘evangelical’.
-
That the local church
is central to our mission, and must take priority in our use of resources.
-
Having established
those principles, we then suggest ways in which the work of the Assembly
might be re-configured to give priority to mission. The report ends by
grappling with our limited financial resources and suggests options that the
church might adopt to achieve a balanced budget.
1. Introduction
1.1 ‘Catch the Vision’ (CTV)
has been working to a published three-phase timetable. Last year we dealt with
the structures of the church. This year we are focussing on the resources and
staffing of the church, and next year our attention will be fixed on
spirituality and values. This was always going to be the most difficult part of
our journey because it is about learning to work with fewer resources. So, we
hope and pray that this may be the year of pain before the year of gain.
The strategic
questions
a) ecumenism
2.1. We are a radical
people because our God is radical. All God’s love is everyone’s birth-right. The
CTV prayer was our way of saying that:
….we seek to be God’s
people,
transformed by the
gospel..
committed to making a
difference to the world’s kingdoms
as we live Christ’s
kingdom.’
2.2 ‘A united church’,
Desmond Tutu told the World Council of Churhes (WCC) at Porto Alegre, ‘is no
optional extra, rather it is indispensable for the salvation of God’s world’. He
went on to link unity firmly with mission and difference making, arguing that
the survival of apartheid for so long was in part a result of Christian
disunity. The church in his vision is a harbinger of what the world might one
day be:
‘Jesus was quite
serious when he said that God was our father, that we belonged all to one
family, because in this family all, not some, are insiders...Bush, bin Laden,
all belong, gay, lesbian, so-called straight – all belong, are loved, are
precious.’
2.3 That is real
ecumenical radicalism, and the unity of the church is but the faltering first
step on the journey. We need no persuading. We were the church created to die,
the transitional catalyst that would bring about the unity of English and Welsh
Protestantism. It was a wonderful dream, and part of our vocation is to continue
to dream, and to be an ecumenical thorn in the side of our partners, reminding
them that Jesus longs for his followers to share the unity that he shares with
the Father and the Spirit. (John 17:20-24).
2.4 God’s unique gift to
us has been to form us from three unions and call us from three nations. Our
passion for unity is to be seen in a growing number of ecumenical partnerships,
in our national pastoral strategy with the Methodist Church, worked out in a
growing number of united areas and in continuing conversations about how we can
work together nationally. We have learnt a good deal about the difficulties of
local united working, but we also know that successful united churches can be
incredibly dynamic and exciting places to be.
Across these islands, in
countless places, we continue to be passionately committed to local as well as
national ecumenism.
2.5 However, despite the
rhetoric of Porto Alegre, the language of organic unity which we speak is rarely
spoken elsewhere. Rather the dialect is of rejoicing in diversity and learning
to live diversely and respectfully. The kind of unity for which we longed is not
about to happen. It is clear from the Ecumenical Committee’s investigations that
this is not the time for discussions about organic unity. It could, though, be
the time to develop parallel pathways which may converge in the fullness of
God’s time.
2.6 There are no unity
schemes on the far or near horizon. For thirty years the driving dynamic of the
United Reformed Church has been unity. It has made us a movement, a pilgrimage,
a people of no abiding city. But is God now asking something extra of us? Are we
now being asked to balance our willingness to ‘die’ with a passion for ‘life’
and mission?
2.7 In a world where
calls for unity receive no positive response, we could opt for the ‘homeopathic’
form of ecumenism. This is the ‘dilute until no one knows you’re there’ option,
and it has a certain validity. Well, it says, pull down the shutters. That was
an interesting experiment. Let’s sell off the silver and throw in our lot with
the parish church or the Baptist meeting and strengthen the Christian presence.
2.8 Or we could opt for
the ‘passion fruit concentrate’ version of ecumenism. That says, we might be a
peculiar flavour, but the drinks cabinet would be much worse off without it.
2.9 The first strategic
question with which we have been grappling in the Steering Group is, dilution or
concentration? Which of those positions will best enable us to share God’s gift
with our Christian brothers and sisters? We have heard it said in ecumenical
circles (granted when others thought we weren’t listening, ‘Don’t bother about
the URC, they won’t be here for long’.) We are not persuaded that our particular
offering to the future great church and indeed to the future of Christian
witness in our three nations will be best served by dilution.
2.10 We believe that we
need to accept that in the goodness of God’s grace, this is where we are called
to pitch our tent, roll our sleeves up and get on with it. In other words, our
ecumenical commitment needs to be put at the service of mission, and mission has
to take its place at the centre of our agenda. We’ve been given so much.
Historically we know about living a radical witness, surviving in the face of
oppression, refusing to bow to the authority of the state in matters of
conscience. We know about reconciling diversity (we have, after all, experienced
three unions). We know what it is to be captivated by Scripture and have our
lives turned upside down. It happens week by week and month by month. Its
electric and wonderful, and we don’t know why we don’t shout about it. We might
be an odd flavour, but we’re a catchy one. People might get to like us.
2.11 It is what Christ
has spoken and what we have heard that is the source of both our unity and our
uniqueness. The unity is obvious, the uniqueness lies in the richness of the
incarnate Word whose speech translates into countless cultures and traditions.
What we have heard, as Congregationalists, Presbyterians, members of the
Churches of Christ and an increasingly diverse United Reformed Church in three
countries, makes us unique. Christ’s gift is not that we are either ‘united’ or
‘reformed’, but that we are ‘united and reformed’. That is Christ’s gift to us,
and because it is his unique gift to us, it is his gift to all God’s people,
just as their unique hearing is part of his gift to us. For the moment then, we
need to rest in that uniqueness, to allow that gift to nurture and nourish us,
and to help us re-discover the roots of our own spiritual vitality.
2.12 So, we think we are
called to be part of the scene. Here to live rather than called to die. Let’s
not be ashamed about being here. Let’s be ourselves. Let’s be glad to be
ourselves. Let’s not apologise for being the United Reformed Church. Let’s
celebrate God’s gifts, and think about possibilities and mission and growth. Why
not church plant? Why not set about pioneering pieces of work? Let’s get
confident, secure in the gospel. Our ultimate unity lies there after all, not in
ecclesiastical designs, however sophisticated, for as Rowan Williams puts it,
‘The Catholic Church is simply that gathering in which what Christ has promised
is spoken and heard.’
2.13 In the dome of the
magnificent Catholic church of Sacre Coeur in Paris is a huge mosaic of Christ
with outstretched arms. At the back of the church is a poster, which reads
‘Whatever you have done, however life might have hurt you, you are welcome here.
The arms of God reach out to you. This is for you.’ Sacre Coeur’s web site
begins:
‘Pilgrims,
visitors, simple passers-by,
Here God welcomes
you to give sense to your life.
Here God waits for
you to offer you all his love.’
We dare to hope that
might be true of our churches too.
b) Changing church
3.1 Such traditional
‘ecu-speak’ lacks resonance in some parts of the contemporary Christian world.
Richard Mortimer taught us to distinguish between fresh expressions of church,
and what he helpfully calls ‘new expressions of ecumenism.’ We stand a fighting
chance of recognising the former, – cell church, café church and so on – because
they are places where the eucharist is celebrated and fellowship happens. The
latter are really rather different – the isolated rural teenagers with a faith
who find each other at Summer events and whose deepest Christian community for
the next 11 months is an electronic network meeting in an organised online
chat-room; the single issue Christian pressure groups on such social issues as
justice, refugees, asylum, the environment and climate change. Some of these
would say that their being in some sort of community with each other as an
outworking of their faith is a much more compelling encounter with God than
Sunday church. What kind of challenge do they bring? Should we try and relate to
them, and if so, how?
3.2 Whether we like it or
not, understand it or not, ways of being church are being spawned beyond the
scope of institutional denominations like ours. This is a very odd transitional
period in history, and in it the most judicious mission strategy is one which
rides the waves, in all their diversity. The Spirit will be about her winnowing
work, and that of lasting value will be left. The difficulty, as ever, is
reading the signs of the times, and coping with conflicting and multiple
demands.
3.3 Equipping the saints
(resolution 30 of the 2005 Assembly) offers us exciting opportunities. It has
freed us from the impossible dream of providing ministerial leadership for every
congregation by offering a broader and more realistic understanding of the ways
in which leadership is exercised locally. We are, in that sense, well placed to
manage and pastor this complex scene in which traditional church and fresh
expressions of church and ecumenism are all happening together. The
complementary resolution 39 (2005 Assembly) allows us to use some of our
ministers more creatively in responding to those challenges. Responding to our
environment is filled with risk, but when was Christian witness anything other?
3.4 We need to manage
that risk with skilful accountability, whilst at the same time maintaining an
alert traditionalism, and we need to balance that continuum with a clear and
insightful realism. However attractive we are, however cleverly we niche market
ourselves, there is no guarantee of success. Gospel and church were never
programmatic processes. The Spirit is too subtle for that, and God too generous.
However, we should not underestimate the stress this can cause. Support for
those in leadership, but particularly for those engaged in full-time ministries
and Christian work on our behalf, is critical, and deserves close thought.
3.5 Doing and being
church differently can never be imposed ‘from above’. It would be quite improper
for Assembly to tell any of our churches how to ‘be’ and ‘do’ church. Assembly
has provided the structural framework within which experiment and evolution can
happen, and we look forward eventually to hearing the stories about what has
been accomplished.
c) Spirituality and core
values.
4.1 Renewal is at the
heart of our agenda. If concentration rather than dilution is required of us, we
must seek renewal from the God who calls us. Desmond Tutu was right to say that
a united church is indispensable for the salvation of God’s world. All around we
see nation set against nation, culture against culture, faction against faction.
Scripture is full of alternative visions, of wolf and lamb together (Isaiah 11),
of Jerusalem’s streets full of well cared-for old folks and bubbly kids (Zecheriah
8:5), of the leaves of the trees being for the healing of the nations
(Revelation 22:2). The church is the harbinger of that new creation, which has
already begun in Christ Jesus (2 Corinthians 5:16ff). Granted, we hold that
treasure in all too earthen vessels, but the world is right to have expectations
that in the church they will see ‘something different’.
4.2 Modelling that
‘something different’ calls us to repentence and renewal, for what the world
actually sees is Christian pitted against Christian, fighting to the
institutional death over issues like human sexuality and arcane aspects of
Biblical interpretation. It is the most desperate witness. We who are committed
to unity to need to live that commitment within our own local churches and
amongst ourselves. We need to show that the old antagonisms between
‘evangelical’ and ‘liberal’ are outmoded and can be transcended.
4.3 We held a small
consultation on mission and evangelism in December 2005, with the deliberate
intent of seeing if there was common ground to build on. It turned out to be a
quite remarkable 24 hours, bringing together ‘evangelicals’ and ‘liberals’,
Biblical scholars and community ministry specialists, together with the odd
church bureaucrat. In one memorable phrase, we discovered that the wings of the
church either keep people apart or enable them to fly. We discovered a
passionate excitement amongst all present about the reading of Scripture.
4.4 John Campbell, who
was our main facilitator, posed the question, ‘Why is the Bible so purposefully
awkward?’ Why does God communicate in this oblique, unusual way? Perhaps to
defeat our inbuilt propensity to domesticate God and control religion, to
challenge assumptions of closure, to seek our friendship, to show the value of
vulnerability, to help us create community (for the Scriptures grew out of a
community of believers), and show us that the text must be read anew in each
generation. He summed up his thinking in the phrase, ‘we have an amazing,
intriguing, talkative God who is beyond us all but right there seeking us..’
4.5 And around that we
converged, seeing both a God-given opportunity to leave behind the
evangelical-liberal divide, and the possibility of a process of renewal which
could gather the church into a community of difference makers for Christ’s sake.
We have seen a vision. We intend to follow it, and make it the key feature of
‘Catch the Vision’ 2007.
d) Ways of working
5.1 Our fourth strategic
observation is that we believe the local church to be absolutely critical. It is
here, more than anywhere else, that gospel and culture meet, here more than
anywhere else that change can happen and discipleship flourish. That is not to
endorse the way some churches do things now, but it is to say that we have a
‘strategic footprint’ across our nations that some commercial organisations
would die for! The possibilities of those places are only limited by our
imaginations. We rejoice in Assembly’s response to Equipping the saints because
it allows us to resource local churches far more flexibly and creatively.
5.2 We wish to build on
that. Gathering and dispersing is the tide of Christian living. That process is
for us essentially parochial, although we are well aware that some still drive
twenty miles to worship, and others shrink that distance in cyberspace, but the
reality is still of gathering around the Word and then dispersing into
discipling activity. Ministers and CRCWs are (with others in some places) the
conductors and animateurs of that process. Or, to change the metaphor into
management-speak – local churches are the only income generating part of the
church process. Our ministers and CRCWs remain essential to that work, and that
local work, presbyteral and diaconal, remains (and should remain) the focus of
our resourcing.
5.3 If we are to continue
to direct our resources there, we must press on with our quest for lighter
governance and a leaner structure. Conciliar government is expensive government.
Whilst we wish to reduce the cost of that government (which our auditors have
identified as overly expensive for an organisation our size), we do not wish to
forsake its principle. We have recognised that by proposing that Assembly will
in future meet every two years, and by our acceptance that we wish to have one
level of council between the Assembly and the local church. The representatives
of that one local council will form both the Assembly, and the Council which
will act on its behalf between Assemblies.
5.4 Our work this year on
the governance of the church has fallen into two inter-related parts:
i) the structure of the
church
5.5 First, the work begun
last year on the number of councils between Assembly and the local church must
be completed. Resolutions 40, 41 and 43 have each received the requisite
two-thirds majority in the councils of the church.
Resolutions 40 41 43
Synods against 1 2 3
Districts against 3 21
The Steering Group
believes that the will of the church has been clearly expressed thus far, and
therefore brings the resolutions back to this Assembly for ratification.
(Resolutions 43-47, p
136)
The report of the London
Synod Commission is given in CTV Appendix 5 (p 161).
5.6 The legal advice
which we have received, whilst not definitive, suggests that in all probability
we will need to create a Statutory Instrument to amend the 1972 Act in respect
of Section 5 Trusts. The Clerk’s advice to the Steering Group is that, if this
is necessary, it should be presented to the 2007 Assembly for agreement prior to
its progress through parliament. That allows us a year to work out a smooth
transition into new ways of working.
5.7 Second, we promised
Assembly last year that we would present options about the possible size and
composition of future Assemblies and (Mission) Council. We apologise that the
material is not available in this report. We very much hope that it will be
available as a separate paper within the Assembly mailing. Deciding about the
size and shape of Assembly involves judgements about the balance of
representation and trust, and (as within any Reformed system) representation has
a direct relationship to the cost of governance (the larger the council, the
more costly it will be). We trust that those will be amongst the factors
affecting Assembly’s decision.
ii) trusteeship
5.8 We must deal with the
question of Trusteeship. In the United Reformed Church, the General Assembly
(under God) is the source of authority and policy. The church operates under
both its own laws and procedures, and under civil law, for it occupies a
privileged position in civic life. The civil government therefore has a right to
expect that churches and charities are managed and governed properly. It is the
role of charity Trustees to give that assurance. Thus the Trustees of the Church
should exercise the control and management of the administration of the church’s
policy (see s.97(1) of the 1993 Act). In other words, they are ‘watch-dogs’ who
should have in place a series of measures to ensure that the administration of
the church is being carried out according to the policy set by Assembly, and
within the provisions of charity law. They must ensure that the charity is
properly pursuing its purposes, preserving its assets and operating on a secure
financial basis, and assessing and responding appropriately to risks and
opportunities.
5.9 It has been clear for
some time that our understanding of Trusteeship needs attention.The General
Assembly of 2001 agreed that the Mission Council Advisory Group (MCAG) should
act as Trustees of the Church. That has proved less than satisfactory, not least
because MCAG’s busy agenda leaves it little time to carry out the necessary
assurance processes. Given the way that our life is presently structured, the
Finance Committee, the URC Trust, the Catch the Vision Steering Group (by
default) and others have all found themselves doing trustee-type work. The
Steering Group considers that we need to establish a more formal, rigorous,
transparent process to provide checks and balances and assurance for those
within and outside the church.
5.10 We believe that we
now have the opportunity to do that, the better to comply with the requirements
of good governance in the 1993 Act. After informal consultation with our Legal
Advisors and the Charity Commission, we believe that we can do this simply, in
two stages.
i) a transitional trustee
body
5.11 Assembly is asked to
appoint the directors of the URC Trust as Trustees in place of MCAG for a period
of one year, and to instruct the Finance Committee to undertake the role of the
Audit Committee for the Trustees.
5.12 Currently all the
assets of the Church are held in the name of the URC Trust as holding trustees,
and the URC Trust already has an investment sub-committee which, de facto, is
undertaking a managing trustee role on the substantial investments of the
Church. The Finance Committee’s work already includes the preparation of the
annual report and accounts which are already technically presented on behalf of
the Trustees to the General Assembly by the Honorary Treasurer.
ii) a permanent trustee
body
5.13 The 2007 Assembly
should be asked to elect Trustees, whilst ensuring a proper degree of continuity
with the URC Trust.
5.14 The aim is that
within the shortest time possible the Trustee body should be entirely elected by
the Assembly. Detailed descriptions of the number of Trustees, the skills needed
by the Trustee body, and a suggested method of election are given in Appendix 2
(p 139).
iii) The Salaries
Committee
5.15 We also recommend
that the Salaries Committee, which at present has no reporting line, should
become the Remuneration Committee for the Trustees.
5.16 In Appendix 1 (p
138) we offer in diagrammatic form a vision of the structure of the church,
which includes the new Trustee body.
(Resolution 48, p 137)
5.17 If councils are
presently one ‘partner’ in our governing structure, committees are the other. We
have already (through the Staffing Advisory Group) undertaken extensive
conversations with committees and staff secretaries to see how we might organise
ourselves for the future. Once again, we do not believe that the status quo is
an option, because we are a small church with limited resources. The days have
gone when we could do all that we want to do. We therefore need to prioritise,
and those priorities need to be set and evaluated by the councils of the
church. There are parts of our work where standing committees are vital, but
other areas where a rapidly shifting environment demands a sure-footed, flexible
response. We therefore offer an alternative vision, which we hope sets mission
at the heart of our work (A more detailed picture is given in the diagram in
Appendix 3p 140). We adopt the term ‘departments’ on the advice of Mission
Council, and we are happy to do so because the thrust of departments at an
earlier stage in our history was to work with representative committees, acting
as channels of information between Assembly and Synods. We believe this to be an
important way of holding the work of the church together. Our hope would be that
this could be further enhanced by allowing Mission Council to divide into three
sections which could take a special interest in the work of the three
departments.
-
The Department of the
Ministries of the Church, which will include training, eldership and youth
and children’s ministries, because they are part of the ministry of the
whole people of God.
-
The Department of
Administration and Resources, which will provide support services like
communications, human resources, finance and so on.
-
The Department of
Mission policy and Theology, which we hope will encourage teamwork and
collaboration in the way we work out how we are to be the church, rather
than the prevalence of our present committees to zoom off into narrow silos
of limited yet passionate interest.
5.18. The Department of
the Ministries of the Church will need much the same committee structure which
we already have, as will certain functions (eg. pensions) within the department
of Administration and Resources. However, the Department of Mission policy and
Theology offers the chance of a new start. We would suggest one committee, with
short-term working parties and reference groups where necessary. If this broad
pattern is acceptable, we would come to the 2007 Assembly with detailed
proposals for changes in committee structures.
5.19 We are also quite
clear that this will have to be introduced and managed within reduced staffing
and financial resources. We believe that to be possible. We do not believe that
to be an ideal position; indeed, we note that in risk management terms, the
staffing of the Assembly’s work is so lean that it is unacceptably vulnerable.
However, unless and until the giving of the church to the central budget
increases, it would be irresponsible of us to suggest remedying this by
increasing staffing. We wish to emphasise, though, that our motivation for
suggesting this change of structure is not financial, but missiological. The
church’s mindset needs to shift to creative engagement with the cultures in
which it is set.
5.20 We believe that this
proposal will place mission and creative thought about the gospel at the centre
of our corporate life. As it does so, it both reflects and will encourage best
practice in other councils of the church.
(Resolution 49, p 137)
e) Resources and Finance
6.1 In our 2005 report (para
110a) we put the church on notice that ‘…unless giving increases considerably,
programmes will have to be discontinued for further savings to be made.’ Giving
has not increased, and we must therefore attend to other ways of reducing
our
expenditure.
6.2 In the paragraphs
that follow we (and our colleagues in the Finance Committee) have attempted to
reduce what we believe to be an unacceptable deficit on the 2007 budget. We have
had to do that from monies which are within the control of the Assembly – namely
M&M. As we have done so, we have been conscious of the fact that it is work
sanctioned by Assembly that we have been reducing. We believe our actions were
necessary and prudent, but the uncomfortable and difficult process we have been
through leads us to make three observations about financial strategy.
a) the wealth of the
whole church
6.3 We believe there
should be a synergy between the resources of the whole church and the ministry
of the whole church. At present there is not. We have a corporate strategy for
ministry and local liberal economy of buildings. We realise that it will not be
easy to move to such a synergy, not least for legal reasons. However, it might
be possible by extending the voluntary covenant that we make with each other
through resource sharing. It is probably wildly idealistic to have a vision of a
church where each congregation and synod places its wealth on a common table
with complete transparency (see Acts 5!), but we believe that to be God’s
challenge to us. The United Reformed Church is resource rich, but cash poor. It
is only by sharing those resources that in the long term we will be able to
engage fully in the mission God calls us to.
b) cost control
6.4 As we have lived
through this process this year we have noted how difficult it is to exercise
cost control over Assembly’s programmes. That is because financial
responsibility and budgetary control are diffused rather than concentrated.
Responsibility lies with committee convenors and their secretaries, and there
are many of them. We suggest that whilst the councils of the church should
continue to control stewardship and financial policy (in the sense of deciding
what the priorities of the church are and what resources should be given to
them), operational management (and therefore budget control) should rest
ultimately with the General Secretariat and the Treasurer. Their lines of
accountability to Mission Council and Assembly are clear.
c) Buildings
6.5 Whilst we accept that
it is presently impossible to produce an ‘Assembly-wide’ buildings policy, we
know that a judicious policy of deciding what buildings we want where is central
to the United Reformed Church’s future, both financially and missiologically. We
would urge Synods and local fellowships of churches to ponder this question
carefully as they evolve strategies for the future. It may well be that what we
cannot achieve through the Assembly might be achieved by the ministry of Synods.
6.6 If we are right in
our contention that we are now called to live, not die, that what is required of
us is concentration, not dilution, certain consequences follow. The way a
church’s identity is sustained is complex. In part it has to do with the kind of
people we are, but it also has to do with the history we inherit, including our
buildings, and the institutions which we have formed through the years.
Throughout at least the last ten years, this has been a recurring dilemma for
Assembly and its Training Committee, for a significant number of those
institutions are training institutions.
6.7 The Steering Group’s
strategy, namely that we are being called to live, has important implications. A
degree of concentration is essential if we are to maintain our unique
contribution to the future of the church in these islands. It is essential both
to maintain our self-understanding of organic unity (the precious gift of our
history since 1972) and our perception of what it means to be part of the
Reformed family (the heritage all of us brought to that and consequent unions).
That concentration is intimately tied up with the life of the institutions of
the church.
6.8 They represent a huge
gift to us as we seek to further develop as a learning church. Our strategic
intent is therefore at one with the proposals of the Training Committee. If we
are to make an intelligent, creative and grounded contribution to the future
church, we need to safeguard and nurture those few institutions which are still
‘ours’. Any further dilution will damage our partners as much as ourselves, for
it will weaken our ability to sustain what we have to offer.
6.9 It is the Training
Committee’s business to work out what that might mean in terms of theological
education, and we would not wish to trespass on their territory. However, we
would wish to make two further comments about other ‘institutions’ which are
‘ours’.
i) Church House
6.10 The offices of a
church don’t have the same emotional resonance as other institutions. As we
reported to Assembly last year, professional valuation revealed that the value
of the building would not cover the cost of re-location elsewhere. However, as
we also reported last year, we are continuing to explore with the Methodist
Church possibilities of working more closely together at Assembly/Conference
level, and that may well have consequences for the future of our offices. Those
conversations are at a preliminary stage, and we do not expect to have anything
specific to report in the near future, but it is important that Assembly realise
that we are making no assumptions about the status quo.
ii) the Windermere Centre
6.11 We believe the
Windermere Centre to have been a remarkable and brave creation of our recent
history. We are confident that the Centre has a central role to play in the
fostering of learning, spiritual vision and koinonia (that sense of ‘God-ness’
which means so much more than the flabby translation ‘fellowship’) amongst us.
We endorse warmly the report of the task group that reported to Mission Council
in 2003, and we ask the Finance Committee to continue their conversation with
the Windermere Advisory Group about ways in which the necessary development of
the Centre might be financed.
6.12 We believe that we
should support our own institutions, and we propose that when committees and
working groups seek meeting venues, the first call on their expenditure should
be the United Reformed Church through the Windermere Centre, its colleges and
Church House. Only if that is not possible should outside institutions be
considered.
The Budget
6.13 As we have pointed
out in previous reports, the finances of the church are complex. The national
budget (which is Assembly’s responsibility) is only part of the whole.
Significant resources exist in some Synods (but not all) and in some local
churches (but not all). Similarly, we are property rich, but cash poor. Our
wealth is tied up in assets, mainly housing ministers in both active service and
retirement, and in investments, many of which are restricted funds where we can
only enjoy the income. We cannot realise that wealth, and where we can, it is
not available immediately. However, that means that our current operation has to
be funded principally by giving. The details of our proposals to maximise that
giving are set out in the M&M review. The state of our finances is made clear in
the draft budget which potentially shows a deficit of over £1 million. Had we
unlimited reserves, we might be able to bear that, but we don’t. That deficit
needs to be cut drastically as our reserves are very limited and we are
conscious of our existing responsibilities to provide for ministers’ pensions
and retirement housing.
6.14 We have five options
as we seek to manage this situation.
a) we can increase our
income through M&M
b) we can cut back on
ministry, which is by far our largest item of expenditure
c) we can make cuts
elsewhere in the budget
d) we can agree to
explore moving items out of the central budget to Synod budgets through a
process similar to resource sharing
e) we can produce a
mixture of the above three measures
We will deal with each
option in turn:
a) increasing income
6.15 We have set out our
suggestions for maximising income in the M&M review (see especially para 11). We
hope and pray that this will commend itself to the church. However, it will not
deal with our underlying problem, our age structure, which means that we are
locked into expecting more giving from fewer people. Even if giving increases,
we must have the courage to lay aside our ‘large church’ mentality, and adopt a
structure which fits our size and resources.
6.16 Experience also
suggests that Assembly’s enthusiasm for programmes and expenditure is not echoed
in local churches and Synods. We worry about the serious accountability gap
between Assembly and the local churches and Synods, and we understand only too
well the ecclesiological implications of that statement.
6.17 Nonetheless, we
challenge to the church to maximise its stewardship, but we do so as realists
who know that despite such appeals, for the last three years Synods have been
unable to pledge their targets, and that the gap between actual and targeted
income has been increasing.
b) cutting ministry
6.18 We have made it
clear in our strategic thinking that we do not believe that the church would
countenance any further cuts in ‘front-line’ ministry. That is an assumption
that we will have to test at Assembly. However, it is hard to see how we would
be able to manage the necessary immediate reduction because a saving of £1
million would require the loss of forty ministers. It remains a medium-term
possibility, but not one we believe the church would welcome.
c) cutting the budget
elsewhere
6.19 We wish to pay
tribute to our staff who manage budgets. Over the past five years they have
struggled to keep expenditure level, often with little margin, for the bulk of
most budgets consists of stipends, salaries and other items that cannot be
easily reduced. It may be that there is still room for reducing discretionary
expenditure. However, although savings in travel, committee and other expenses
may be significant, they will not be dramatic.
6.20 Lasting and
significant savings will only be made if Assembly addresses the question of
non-discretionary budget expenses. We believe that Assembly must exercise that
responsibility this year.
d) moving items to the
budget of other parts of the church
6.21 Part of the
rationale of ‘Catch the Vision’ was exploring what services needed to be
delivered at each level of church life. We note that the combined income of
Synods is greater than the national programme budget, and we therefore wish to
explore the possibilities of shifting parts of our programme into Synod budgets.
e) A combination
6.22 A combination of the
above measures will probably be necessary if we are to manage this situation
creatively.
6.23 We do not rejoice in
this. It is not where we wish to be. We wish to be in the position where we have
a revenue rather than an expenditure led budget. We wish to be in the place
where the church gives joyfully out of gratitude to God to enable the mission of
God. However, we are not there. It is our hope that one day we might be. In the
meantime we offer the following. Our prayer is that this will be a provisional
state, and that within five years increased stewardship will result in an
improved financial position which will enable us to expand rather than contract
our work.
6.24 General Assembly
needs to know the rationale behind our proposals. The background is one of
sustained cost-cutting and budget reductions in the activities of the Assembly.
Some budgets have already been cut to the point where to cut anything else would
be to imperil the programme (for example, Church and Society). The M&M report (para
5:1) bears witness to the fact that over the period 2002-5 the costs of training
and administration have been held. General Assembly needs to be clear that that
has meant reductions in support staffing and administration (for example, one
administrator now services International and ecumenical relations, and the
General Secretary and the Deputy General Secretary work to one PA). We have not,
nor will we in the present financial climate, replace the Financial Secretary.
In other words, administration is bearing a share of the costs. It is very
difficult to see how we could cut central administration further without undue
risk to the church’s infrastructure.
6.25 Our options have
therefore been severely limited, and at the time of writing the budget is still
subject to negotiation. The following should therefore be understood as an
interim statement of the measures that are under consideration.
a) substantial savings
have been offered in the Ecumenical committee and Communications and Editorial
committee budgets.
b) savings have been
offered in the Racial Justice and Multicultural ministry budget.
c) after ministry and
training, the largest item of expenditure in the central budget is Youth and
Children’s work. The vast majority of that is composed of salaries. The budgeted
figure for 2007 is £650k (the committee, central cost of YCWT team, and PILOTS),
to which must be added a further £280K which is the Synod portion of the cost of
the YCWT team. In other words, we spend £930K on youth and children’s work.
We suggest
(i) that the Youth and
Children’s Work budget be reduced by £60K (a cut of 6.5% in the church’s total
expenditure on Youth and Children’s work at Assembly and Synod levels).
(ii) that the costs of
the YCWT team be met entirely by Synods, perhaps by an extension of the resource
sharing principle.
(d) should the proposals
for re-structuring into 3 ‘areas’ of work be accepted, we would envisage the
eventual discontinuing of the Life and Witness post, because the focus of the
new area will be mission, and the support of eldership will move to the training
area. Given the present financial constraints, we would not feel justified in
appointing an extra member of staff. We would therefore envision savings in the
area of £40K.
(e) we note the proposals
of the Training committee. It is difficult to anticipate what savings might
occur should it be accepted, but we note that savings might well occur from
2008. However, we are also aware that if we are to maintain our present level of
ministry (tracking at 3% membership decline as Assembly has directed) we will
soon need to foster vocations. A prudent and wise church would be opening a
vocations campaign at this point. If we do that, it will be very hard for the
Training Committee to cut costs.
(f) if Assembly is held
every two years, we should effect a saving of c. £100K p.a. (ie. the saving of
£200K in alternative years)
6.26 In summary
therefore, the following economies are suggested (to which will be added the
substantial cuts under negotiation with the Ecumenical and Communications
committees):
£000
Racial Justice 10
Youth and Children’s work
60
Re-structuring mission 40
Reduced Assembly 100
Financial Secretary 50
----
Sub-total 260
Moving costs of YCWTs 280
----
Total 540
We hope that the final
result will be in the region of £700K, reducing the deficit to a manageable
£300K.
Catch the
Vision Resolutions
a) Resolutions 40, 41 and
43 of 2005, which are returned for ratification
Resolution 44 (40 of 2005)
Resolutions returned for ratification 1
General Assembly
resolves that there shall be one level of council between the General Assembly
and the local church.
Resolution 45 (41 of 2005)
Resolutions returned for ratification 2
General Assembly
resolves that as from General Assembly 2007, there shall be one level of council
between the General Assembly and the local church, the thirteen ‘new Synods.’
Resolution 46 (43 of 2005)
Resolutions returned for ratification 3
General Assembly
resolves that, as from 2007, General Assembly shall meet every two years.
b) Resolutions consequent
upon that decision:
Resolution 47
Changes to the Basis and Structure
General Assembly
approves the changes to the Basis and Structure of the United Reformed Church
consequent upon its acceptance of resolutions 40, 41 and 43 of 2005, as set out
in Catch the Vision Appendix 4, pages 141-160 of the book of Reports 2006.
c) New resolutions
Resolution 48
General Trustees
General Assembly
appoint the United Reformed Church Trust to be the General Trustees of the
church from the close of Assembly 2006.
Resolution 49
The future work of Assembly
General Assembly approves of the principle of
dividing its work into three departments, Ministries, Administration and
Resources, and Mission policy and Theology, and instructs the Catch the Vision
Steering Group to prepare detailed proposals for the 2007 Assembly.
Southern Synod has given
notice that, in the event of Resolution 43 of Assembly 2005, “General Assembly
resolves that, as from 2007, General Assembly shall meet every two years.” not
being approved, it will move:
Resolution 50
Southern Synod
General Assembly
instructs Mission Council to consider whether some other form of General
Assembly might be appropriate for the future, e.g. a much wider General Assembly
every 3-5 years comprising ministers and representatives from all churches,
funded by local churches, with Mission Council being given increased powers to
act between Assemblies.
Proposer:
The Revd Michael Davies
Seconder:
Dr Graham Campling
1.1 During the Synod
discussion of Resolution 43 of the 2005 Assembly, it was clear that there was
considerable hesitation about the proposal. Part of the genius of the United
Reformed Church is that it is a connexional church – a family. A smaller, less
frequent Assembly will merely increase to gap between the local Church and
General Assembly and deepen the “them and us” divide, which is quite contrary to
our ethos.
1.2 Whilst we have moved
on from the days when May Meetings and General Assembly packed Westminster
Chapel and the City Temple every year and anyway, no one suggests that 2,500
people would actually gather for an all-inclusive Assembly, we need to find a
way to recapture that sense of the whole family meeting, at least once in a
while.
1.3 We therefore suggest
a model such as that used by the World Council of Churches, which has a full
Assembly – every member church welcome – every 7 years for worship and
fellowship, to elect leaders and to set broad policy guidelines, with a strong
Central Committee to meet regularly meantime to implement policy. In the case of
the United Reformed Church an Assembly every 3-5 years would probably be about
right (with a strengthened Mission Council with powers to act). If local
Churches were asked to save up and pay for their minister and representative, it
would not be a great burden, but even if the cost were met centrally, it would
be much less expensive spread over a period.
1.4 Such an Assembly
would give us that sense of belonging, of being the church and ownership of our
visions and policy, which seems so lacking at present.
top |
